|
Post by rally2xs on Oct 18, 2018 11:45:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 18, 2018 12:20:38 GMT -5
Alan Greenspan is an idiot. So are you.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 18, 2018 12:51:26 GMT -5
Where exactly are the 7 million jobs (as in physical locations)? Do they require skilled labor, or can a high school graduate with no work experience do them? How stable are they? If someone relocated half-way across the country, will the job stay there for more than a year? Do they require physical labor, or standing on your feet all day, or can someone who has a back problem work at them? How many are at retail establishments?
And of course the big one - how many of them pay enough to support one person, so that person can pay rent and utilities, own a used car and eat?
Something tells me that the bulk of these jobs are retail, and pay less than $15/hr.....
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Oct 18, 2018 22:14:59 GMT -5
Where exactly are the 7 million jobs (as in physical locations)? Do they require skilled labor, or can a high school graduate with no work experience do them? How stable are they? If someone relocated half-way across the country, will the job stay there for more than a year? Do they require physical labor, or standing on your feet all day, or can someone who has a back problem work at them? How many are at retail establishments? And of course the big one - how many of them pay enough to support one person, so that person can pay rent and utilities, own a used car and eat? Something tells me that the bulk of these jobs are retail, and pay less than $15/hr..... I'm sure the jobs are diverse, qualifying for answers of both "yes" and "no" depending on the job, as well as all possible answers otherwise. I think you'd just have to evaluate each one you're interested in to answer those questions. If it were me, I'd try to find one that was close enough not to require a move, would accommodate any physical limitation I might have, and be more stable than the one I already have. And of course it would have to pay more or it wouldn't be worth the move. Did you ask all those questions about any jobs that might be available, of which there were few, during the reign of "O"?
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 19, 2018 4:53:57 GMT -5
Why don't you tell us the jerbs are all dependent on a vague future weapons deal, if we just let Saudi Arabia murder journalists, like Drumpf approves of? Or maybe they are jerbs to separate families at the border, eh?
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 19, 2018 4:55:46 GMT -5
Also, since you bring up consistency of concerns during a better president's terms, how's that deficit doing? Bigly yuge, isn't it? Where's your push for a balanced budget now? IOKIYAR.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 19, 2018 8:41:43 GMT -5
Believe it or not Rally, I did. And I also agreed with Republicans like yourself that the numbers were probably skewed because they don't account for people who drop off the unemployment rolls because they've lost eligibility or have given up looking.
And unlike you, I don't have faith that these are high-paying jobs. I think that most of them are part-time retail, with no path upward.
I would like to know the definition of a 'job' - as in what qualifies to say that a 'job' is available. Does it have to be FT with benefits, or would my daughter's PT weekend job that's 5hrs/wk qualify to be counted? And also, what is the definition of 'unemployed' - does it count young people who are just entering the workforce, older people who were forced out with an 'early retirement' package, but who still need to work?
Maybe rather than just saying 'Jobs have been created!' as Trump is doing, or 'Unemployment is down' as his predecessor did, we should be asking for the details behind these numbers in clear language.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 19, 2018 9:37:59 GMT -5
They're allergic to details. Because they are factual and not emotional.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 19, 2018 11:24:30 GMT -5
Let's give the devil it's due here. When job numbers were up under Obama, everyone cried "Economy back to normal!", and I agree that I was guilty of that as well.
I have been reading a lot lately about groups that are marginalized. The economic recovery has passed a lot of people by, and the vast majority of us are completely ignoring this.
I really think of people like John (no offense here) - intelligent people who want to work, and have skills, but can't physically meet the demands of many available jobs. When you have severe back problems, you can't be standing on your feet all day, or lifting heavy equipment. Despite those limitations, John is still out there killing himself physically and trying to stay afloat, but you can only tread water for so long. We are totally leaving these people behind, and lumping them all into a category of 'not trying hard enough'. And we're doing this on both sides of the aisle. Republicans may say that John is lazy and should relocate to a better area if he wants work. Democrats will say that since he's not a white-collar worker, he *must* have voted for Trump, and therefore is ignorant and incapable of finding work.
We all need to do better, and start asking about the people who are being left behind, if for no other reason than the fact that the majority of these people seem to be middle-aged or older and will be aging out of any workforce soon. Who will care for them if they need medical help? Who will make sure they have food and some sort of shelter? And most importantly, how will we give any reassurance that they will have any quality of life?
Wanna know why there's a big Opioid crisis right now? It's not because doctors are over prescribing (although that has greatly contributed to the black market), but because too many people see no future ahead. When your current quality of life sucks, and you see nothing better down the road, it's a lot easier to start using simply to dull the reality of your life. Not the only cause, but I suspect it's a pretty large one.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 19, 2018 11:45:12 GMT -5
Easy to solve, just remove all regulations and cut taxes for the richest and businesses. Voila, works every time.
I would disagree with your take in this regard: it appears the Democrats attempt to make things better for everyone, the Republicans seem to make things better for the already comfortable. But we need to care for everyone here, non-citizens included.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Oct 20, 2018 11:06:35 GMT -5
Easy to solve, just remove all regulations and cut taxes for the richest and businesses. Voila, works every time. I would disagree with your take in this regard: it appears the Democrats attempt to make things better for everyone, the Republicans seem to make things better for the already comfortable. But we need to care for everyone here, non-citizens included. Put another way, Democrats cater to every sub-culture we have - gays, blacks, hispanics, the poor, you-name-it, EXCEPT the hard-working middle class who they want to tax out of their well-earned comfortable life. Democrats have completely abandoned them, being very much OK with shipping their jobs overseas and doing absolutely nothing for them except to make life worse. Even the ACA has the effect of doing good things for "the poor", but just rape the holy F out of the working class guy whose costs for health care skyrocket every year. My friend out in California said his healthcare bill went up 35%. He's retired but also has some $$$ saved after a career as an electrical engineer. The Democrats don't give a F about him, tho. The Republicans are the only ones that are trying to make the middle classers better-off, bringing jobs back to the country, making tariffs so the old, closed industries are reopening such as aluminum and steel. The world is no longer free to rape the American middle class because of Republicans. And, BTW, this has plummeted the black and hispanic unemployment rate to historic lows, lowest ever recorded since the beginning of the nation, and so the Republicans help the middle class AND the others as well. Of course, all this economic winning is good for business, so the rich get better off too. My take on that is, "So what?" I'm not a 6 year old on a playground all crying with my fists in my eyes because some other kid got a bigger piece of birthday cake. Envy is a bitch, y'know, but Democrats are selling envy. Tsk tsk, that's one of the deadly sins. Just say no. Be happy with your elevated living conditions no matter who you are, and thank a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Oct 20, 2018 11:30:02 GMT -5
BTW, we NEED _some_ regulations, so that industries can compete with each other on a fair basis. IOW, there should be regulations regulating pollution so that one company cannot build a cheaper widget by disposing of their wastes in manners that harm the public but help their bottom line. That's a GOOD regulation. Bad regulations are the ones that serve little to no purpose other than to regulate for its own sake. Trump has rescinded 1000's of regulations that did no good but did impede growth. And some of them did some very small amount of good, but chased jobs away from the USA and so harmed the American people by reducing prosperity for a miniscule gain in another aspect. Regulations, yes, but they have to be a net winner for the American people. Protecting ANWR from drilling did not make sense, since the drilling site was the size of O'Hare airport in a land of 100's of 1000's of square miles, the damned Caribou and other critters would have needed a GPS just to find the damned thing, and it would in no way have harmed their existence. Protecting ANWR was nonsense, and even more nonsensical was regulating the Keystone Pipeline out of existence. That was done simply for political pandering to rich liberals like Tom Steyer, and had the effect of killing people on the highways in accidents with trucks carrying crude oil that would have otherwise went by much safer pipeline. Also there were notable railway accidents where sometimes entire towns were immolated by the crashing of train carrying crude oil which caught fire and burned hell out of the places where they crashed. That mostly doesn't happen with pipelines. Regulations have to make sense, but the Democrats use 'em for pure politics and harm the American public.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 20, 2018 14:31:59 GMT -5
Regulations do need to makes sense. And our history has been one of piling them atop each other. So it all needs reform. However, that's surgery, and the GOP and Trump admin are driving a D10. Wholesale gutting is not a thoughtful, considered approach.
You sure do live an evidence free life with all those assertions on top of your presumtion that your white privilege is valid. You've been catered to forever, but begrudge anyone else getting any benefit from any government action. Very Christ-like. As I told you one billion times, "E pluribus I got mine, bitches".
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 22, 2018 9:07:08 GMT -5
Democrats cater to every sub-culture we have - gays, blacks, hispanics, the poor, you-name-it Glad to know that the middle-class is a 'whites only' zone. And it's funny - all of those pesky regulations that Trump repealed don't seem to have stopped companies from shipping jobs overseas. So again, let's define 'employment' - if I am working FT at a job that only pays $14 an hour (Hey, I'm just starting out and have no work experience yet!), am I counted in all of the great numbers, even though I don't make enough to pay rent and support myself? The answer is yes. And the answer has always been yes. Much like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy however, we are asking the wrong question. IMO, the question we should be asking is "If so many people do have jobs, then why do they all seem to be falling farther and farther behind?" "Why does our society seem to be getting worse rather than better in terms of things like drug abuse and violence?" I may be wrong, but a huge part of me says that it's because we've allowed the conversation to be controlled entirely by people who look at blacks, hispanics, gays and the poor as 'sub-cultures' that don't need to have a seat at the table or any input into how our country and communities should be run. It's long past time for that to change.
|
|